I'm of the related opinion that developers should be required to do at least 12 months as software analysts: taking problem reports that customer service folks can't solve and debug code to find the issue.
I learned OK code practices by writing a semi-complex website in Perl when I was learning to code. Combine Perl and a newbie and you get horrible code; maintaining that code taught me a lesson.
I am currently working as a software analyst (have been for about a year) and boy... I was a big fan of good methods of logging and printing debug information, good coding standards, etc. before. But now it's gone to an even higher level.
The amount of money you save by writing good code is insane, and I'm qualified to have an opinion.;) We wouldn't spend half the time on individual issues (and half of the issues wouldn't exist) if our software were planned out well and had a good foundation.
My tips to you folks who won't get this experience: 1) Write modular code!!! Duplicate code is the biggest no-no in existance. "Run-on" functions are a huge no-no as well. I've had to deal with small programs and some functions that have pages of variable declarations (one per line) and even more code. In many situations, functions shouldn't be longer than 50-100 lines, 20-30 is best. Even if it's not used over and over again, it makes your code easier to follow because it's blocked off. It's really hard to debug a function when it could be a program in itself. Making code modular helps the code to comment itself. Another added benefit: want to switch from binary flatfiles to Postgres? Good luck if you don't pipe all access to your flatfiles through one library.
2) Write skimable code. Good variable names. No buffers containing multiple sets of data (use structs or classes, damnit). Comments every so often explaining what step you're on. Debugging and maintenance (most of the work, as all experienced programmers know) are very time consuming (and sometimes extremely difficult) without skimable code (note I didn't say readable -- skimable goes beyond readable). If I have to spend more than 10 minutes to get the overall process of 1000-1500 lines of code, you're not doing your job.
3) Have good teaching methods. Good documentation and training are essential to anyone working on any project, especially folks who are in charge of debugging the whole system. I haven't had these and it's cost the company money.
4) Debugging is more helpful that most folks realize. Imagine a multi-user server-client system. I get a report about a user having a problem. I load up a client, log onto that user, and run a debug program in my terminal session which flips debugging on for that user. I can now read the progression of code from the bottom up, from the back-end to the GUI. This is my wet-dream. And it's not difficult to do if you've spent even just a little time on a foundation. Now, obvious problems are solved in minutes and non-obvious problems are solved in half the time because I know what programs/libraries/application layers are involved. I can make a much better guess at where a problem lies.
This isn't me wishing for a "Do My Job For Me" button. These are, in the big picture, realistic requests from a programmer. I'm a developer at heart, I write programs in my spare time. My current day job just happens to be fixing some horribly ugly code and I know, from the other side, how much the "let's just code!" attitude costs a company. It's almost industry habit to just start without sitting down to plan. Just read this article.;)
Sorry for the rambling, Slashdot is good for venting. =)
"Third, the company is taking no responsibility for the break in other than reporting it to the clients, who then may or may not inform their customers."
Saddly, our government doesn't seem to be too... enthusiastic about stopping this type of stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm a libertarian at heart, I think the government should stay out until absolutely necessary, but this is a case where it's gone too far. I don't trust the consumer enough to protect his own rights.
Anyway, with the current corporate situation, and the examples set by Microsoft et al, IT has grown into a industry with no personal responsibility and very questionable morals.
IBM Lawyers: Mr. Darl McBride, if you'll please follow us to our conference room, we think we've found a solution which will prove beneficial to both parties.
[A few minutes later] What? Oh, this is just our new office -- modern arco and such. Watch your head.
Yes, just strap yourself in nice and tight. Normal proceedure. We'll be right back, we've got to go fetch our documents.
Microsoft can't beat Linux TCO. Microsoft isn't (thus far) willing to lower prices below those of commercial distros (at least to the last writeup I read 1-2 months ago). Microsoft hasn't had much luck with direct FUD; much of it has backfired. Microsoft may have success with indirect FUD or legal means, but...
Microsoft is final realizing that if they're not smart and quick on their feet, Linux could really eat into their chunk of the pie graph. If they don't nip this in the bud NOW, they may never completely get rid of Linux in the corporate market. They may be forced to share that big, fat, juicy pie for a long time to come. Notice all the security patches compared to in the past. Notice the new stability. Notice their more realistic attitude towards Linux.
Linux is forcing Microsoft to compete. It's as simple as that.
That said, they're a company out for one thing and one thing alone: money. They're just being strongarmed into being a little more honest. For this reason, and because Microsoft will never give me as much choice as Linux, I'm sticking with the penguin.
It's also interesting to note that this drive for money is conflicting in many areas with their need to compete. They've been considering charging for major patches for a while now... and their patching efforts are already quite wanting. Their greed (How much is office again? What popular new features does it have from 4 years ago? Is it worth that much?) is conflicting with their survival.
I think, in short, the biggest issue against things like the TIA is this:
The TIA was thought of as a means to search for patterns among public data on American citizens. This equates to the government (computer program or not) evaluating you and your habits for potential trends. It is, in effect, a way for the government to stake-out its citiziens.
Rights to privacy and due process state clearly: you are innocent until proven guilty, and you have a right to be left alone. What the TIA is doing is investigating every citizen regardless of their behavior.
A good analogy is putting up cameras in every public place. The place is public, and they're not targeting YOU specifically, so what's there to worry about, right?
For one, I want to live my life without knowing someone is looking over my shoulder unless they have a reason to look over my shoulder. Playing big-brother to all citizens is not where we want things to go.
Secondly, the argument "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" shows logical ineptitude. The first step in any police state is the ability to monitor citizens. The next step is to deem minority actions illegal (e.g. possessing communist doctorines [see McSurely v. McClellan, Supreme Court]).
When a single body controls both the laws and the force that enforces those laws, the only things they lack are the tools to find those breaking their laws.
History has shown that the public won't stop a government from enacting laws against minorities, especially if the law and/or enforcement of that law are vague, so instead of trust our government not to abuse their information gathering tools, I'd rather just not give them those tools.
If terrorists are on every street corner, either we should be having a lot more bombings (how hard is it to strap TNT to your chest and walk into a Burger King?), or the government has been doing a damn good job in the last decade without these tools.
If you folks want guarantees that terrorists can't do anything to us, enjoy living in a police state, I'll be buying a private island.
PS: To any trolls wanting to call me a liberal whiner who doesn't want my ID checked in an airport, I'll save you some time and humiliation. I typically agree with conservatives over liberals, I believe in airport ID checking and the like. Where do I draw the line? Going to an airport is not generally a regular experience for the vast majority of Americans and often involves international travel. Airports are a good place to scan, IMO. However, if I can be watched just by going through a normal week, I have issues.
I understand and agree with what you've written. Linux marketing is something that needs to be worked on.
It's really just terminology, so I'll leave it at this:
For the vast majority of users, installations are done by admins (at a company) or by a hardware vendor (Dell) or by experienced users (friends/family). Installation isn't a hurdle Linux must overcome. I hope this myth goes away.
For the majority of uses (browsing, email, IM, movies, image editing, printing, scanning, etc.), Linux generally works at least as well as Windows when configured correctly.
Put the two together, and I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
1) If there's a company that is willing to invest money in a black box solution, there will always be plenty of hackers chomping at the bit to break it.
2) If consumers dislike being strong-armed, they will move away, even if the move is extremely slow. Internet filesharing and Linux are two examples of this. Game cracking programs are as well.
The human mind cannot stand to be oppressed or contained and will always fight to break free. This instance is like a black market. "If there is a market, someone will fill it."
Oh I certainly understand and agree -- I'm a programmer myself. However, I would say something to the effect of "I probably used a new feature" or "I ran into a bug" over "it crashed due to a misconfiguration on my part" (emphasis mine). It's really a nit-pick, but it seems that a lot of folks have this mentality these days.
Sorry if I sounded like a troll. =( I'm paid to debug code, I know all about the development process.:D
"That's your problem: You assimilate your experience with other people experience."
Huh? I was certainly a Linux newbie when I got into it. You can certainly expect a paid IT admin to learn something faster than I did when I picked it up.
-- "Which distro are you using exactly?"
Currently Gentoo.
-- "When you make the statement "it's as easy as doing it on Windows", which distro are you referring to?"
The last time I played with Red Hat (I believe 8), plugging in SMB information during the install got me up and running without a problem. I'm certain, with all the changes to SMB, that certain networks have issues with this, but I didn't.
Printing has always been a breeze for me in Red Hat. Even on the SMB network at my office.:)
--- "That has always been Unix problem, and Linux is only partially solving it: Disparity. Which shell are you using? Which window Manager?"
Keeping this company centric, a company is going to standardize on one distro which is configured by one admin. This doesn't seem to be getting across. =\ Disparity isn't an issue in this thread.
Here's something I hope you can give honest thought to: are you applying old fashioned methods and geek mentality to this? Most home users are using Red Carpet or the like to install programs (or have someone do it for them, comparable to how most folks probably do it with Windows). Most folks go with the default. Slack and Gentoo are in completely different ball-parks.
I don't know what kind of victim-mentality you grew up in (sorry for the flame), but come on man...
If something is so small that you can "just miss it", it's not big enough to sue over.
If something gets out there that is big enough to sue over, let the company be responsible for a change. I'm tired of this, "Oh, sorry, wasn't paying attention, don't hold me accountable".
Common sense folks. Manage. Be responsible. Be accountable.
I make it a habit to check the privacy policy of any website that requires my email address. I've got a hotmail account for those I don't care to check or for those that have bad policies.
I never use my work email to sign up for things, I rarely have my work email published anywhere (mailling lists, etc.). I honestly don't think I've gotten any spam on my work account since I started (summer of 2000). I might have confused one or two with my other accounts, but I can't say.
That said... is my experience really limited? Do a lot of folks just work for companies with such popular domains that spammers do dictionary attacks? Do folks use their work email address to sign up for "e-greetings" and "quiz your friends.com"? Or am I missing something?
Windows got it's marketshare from being adopted into offices and then brought home, which then causes more offices to adopt it since employees know it, etc.
You're talking about installation. This is an administration task. Administration tasks are almost exclusively handled by IT folks in companies these days.
Put the two together, and you get a clear picture. As long as an admin can get a tarball of a working Linux installation onto a CD or NFS share (which he can), Linux effectively has no barriers to entry. Business adopt Linux, folks take Linux home, market share grows, companies invest in making software portable to get more $$$, more people use Linux, etc.
Note that Windows didn't really play well with desktops or especially servers when it was introduced.
Remember kids, the vast majority of UNIX servers run on Linux. If Linux isn't Windows server friendly, Windows wasn't UNIX server (a very established market) friendly.
As for the client, if you have an admin doing 90% of the software configuration on a box (the way the vast majority of companies do things), Linux is a breeze. Setup is really the only area Linux is lacking in thus far.
"With linux, you need them, and if they , at C|Net didn't have them, it probably means they are not that obvious to identify and/or find for the average end user."
What end-users at a typical company these days know how to manage a Windows network connection?
Your analogy doesn't add up.
And who the hell looks for Linux apps at C|Net anyway?!? I have a hunch this might be your problem -- maybe a little ill informed but making an opinion anyway?
In addition, claiming that the "right tools" aren't "part of the system" (differentiate between a tool and the OS) in Linux is ridiculous. Windows has a number of services and tools built in, but nothing so specific that you'd have to hunt for a Linux equivilent in any modern distro.
For example, a typical Red Hat installation (or anything else, really) has enough software (already installed and configured) to log onto a Windows network and happily share files and print. This isn't opinion up for debate, this is plain fact. I've been doing this since I got into Linux, actually, about three years ago.
Just to help the logic-impaired, don't go flaming about "Ooh it's so hard to get SAMBA working." For one, these days, it's as easy as doing it on Windows. For two, again, what end-users do you know in a corporate environment that manage their network connection?
"An infrastructure is not ripped out and replaced in a day -- or even two. I doubt that we'll see Linux being used for wholesale replacements of corporate desktops in the near future. Until that day does come, Linux needs to play nice with the current prevailing technology."
Desktops: For certain desktop aspects? Yes. Linux needs to play nicely, users aren't going to compromise.
That said, I think it's very fair to argue that with the same corporate setup (IT guys doing all software administration for 90% of employees), Linux does fine for the vast majority. The hardest part of using Linux is getting programs installed and working and configured, which is all an admin job. Like it or not, the rest is generally pie. Most Linux applications (Galeon, Gaim, AbiWord, Evolution) all have very easy-to-use GUIs. I don't see Linux lacking here.
Servers: I'm sure some folks will correct me, and I'm sure that even more will nitpick here, but how well did Windows work with UNIX? Can it do NFS well? Kerberos? All the client software worked with UNIX I would assume, but somehow I doubt that NT was extremely UNIX friendly upon its introduction. Somehow I don't see the "new technologies must be friendly" in this instance. Can anyone (intelligently) point out a flaw in my logic? (it's late)
I'm a computer programmer (software analyst to be exact; I debug code all day). I currently work for a company that does hospital software. We use both Windows for desktops and servers and Linux for desktops and servers, we use Windows related apps on Linux and Linux related apps on Windows (just depends on which department you're in). I've been a hardcore computer geek for a number of years. I've got two dual boot systems (Windows & Linux) on my desk at home, a Linux server and a Linux laptop. My first OS was DOS 3.0, though I was pretty young then (I'm still young now, to be fair).
In my experience, what you've said is correct, but outdated, or current but a little over-the-top, however you want to look at it. Regardless, your basic ideas are sane and I think folks need to realize this.
In no other industry (that I can think of) does such cruft get passed of with such a pricetag and so little consumer control and even less corporate responsibility. The concept of a shrink-wrap EULA with such clauses as "you will not use Frontpage 2000 to write pages defamatory of Microsoft" is almost unheard of in the big picture.
Microsoft is certainly not the only big, bad, evil corporation out there, and they're certainly not all evil. But I'll agree with you: Microsoft has really spoofed a lot of people into believing that these things are normal and they're not.
Some of you folks need to take a step back for a sec, cast aside your creed and look at the issues. There are really a lot of pro-MS zealots here (contrary to all the whining [yes, whining -- see not informed discussion]).
If IBM shoots a warning-shot across Gate's bow, he'd be insane not to bow to their wishes. IBM is the God of research. They can pretty much out-match anyone in an IP pissing contest, including Microsoft.
Recall the IP fuss that Intel got into recently over the Itanium? Microsoft vs IBM would not look pretty.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm of the related opinion that developers should be required to do at least 12 months as software analysts: taking problem reports that customer service folks can't solve and debug code to find the issue.
;) We wouldn't spend half the time on individual issues (and half of the issues wouldn't exist) if our software were planned out well and had a good foundation.
;)
I learned OK code practices by writing a semi-complex website in Perl when I was learning to code. Combine Perl and a newbie and you get horrible code; maintaining that code taught me a lesson.
I am currently working as a software analyst (have been for about a year) and boy... I was a big fan of good methods of logging and printing debug information, good coding standards, etc. before. But now it's gone to an even higher level.
The amount of money you save by writing good code is insane, and I'm qualified to have an opinion.
My tips to you folks who won't get this experience:
1) Write modular code!!!
Duplicate code is the biggest no-no in existance. "Run-on" functions are a huge no-no as well. I've had to deal with small programs and some functions that have pages of variable declarations (one per line) and even more code. In many situations, functions shouldn't be longer than 50-100 lines, 20-30 is best. Even if it's not used over and over again, it makes your code easier to follow because it's blocked off. It's really hard to debug a function when it could be a program in itself. Making code modular helps the code to comment itself.
Another added benefit: want to switch from binary flatfiles to Postgres? Good luck if you don't pipe all access to your flatfiles through one library.
2) Write skimable code.
Good variable names. No buffers containing multiple sets of data (use structs or classes, damnit). Comments every so often explaining what step you're on. Debugging and maintenance (most of the work, as all experienced programmers know) are very time consuming (and sometimes extremely difficult) without skimable code (note I didn't say readable -- skimable goes beyond readable). If I have to spend more than 10 minutes to get the overall process of 1000-1500 lines of code, you're not doing your job.
3) Have good teaching methods.
Good documentation and training are essential to anyone working on any project, especially folks who are in charge of debugging the whole system. I haven't had these and it's cost the company money.
4) Debugging is more helpful that most folks realize.
Imagine a multi-user server-client system. I get a report about a user having a problem. I load up a client, log onto that user, and run a debug program in my terminal session which flips debugging on for that user. I can now read the progression of code from the bottom up, from the back-end to the GUI. This is my wet-dream. And it's not difficult to do if you've spent even just a little time on a foundation. Now, obvious problems are solved in minutes and non-obvious problems are solved in half the time because I know what programs/libraries/application layers are involved. I can make a much better guess at where a problem lies.
This isn't me wishing for a "Do My Job For Me" button. These are, in the big picture, realistic requests from a programmer. I'm a developer at heart, I write programs in my spare time. My current day job just happens to be fixing some horribly ugly code and I know, from the other side, how much the "let's just code!" attitude costs a company. It's almost industry habit to just start without sitting down to plan. Just read this article.
Sorry for the rambling, Slashdot is good for venting. =)
"Third, the company is taking no responsibility for the break in other than reporting it to the clients, who then may or may not inform their customers."
Saddly, our government doesn't seem to be too... enthusiastic about stopping this type of stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm a libertarian at heart, I think the government should stay out until absolutely necessary, but this is a case where it's gone too far. I don't trust the consumer enough to protect his own rights.
Anyway, with the current corporate situation, and the examples set by Microsoft et al, IT has grown into a industry with no personal responsibility and very questionable morals.
I can't say this surprises me much.
IBM Lawyers: Mr. Darl McBride, if you'll please follow us to our conference room, we think we've found a solution which will prove beneficial to both parties.
[A few minutes later]
What? Oh, this is just our new office -- modern arco and such. Watch your head.
Yes, just strap yourself in nice and tight. Normal proceedure. We'll be right back, we've got to go fetch our documents.
*door locks*
I agree. I think this is pretty cut and dry.
Microsoft can't beat Linux TCO.
Microsoft isn't (thus far) willing to lower prices below those of commercial distros (at least to the last writeup I read 1-2 months ago).
Microsoft hasn't had much luck with direct FUD; much of it has backfired.
Microsoft may have success with indirect FUD or legal means, but...
Microsoft is final realizing that if they're not smart and quick on their feet, Linux could really eat into their chunk of the pie graph. If they don't nip this in the bud NOW, they may never completely get rid of Linux in the corporate market. They may be forced to share that big, fat, juicy pie for a long time to come. Notice all the security patches compared to in the past. Notice the new stability. Notice their more realistic attitude towards Linux.
Linux is forcing Microsoft to compete. It's as simple as that.
That said, they're a company out for one thing and one thing alone: money. They're just being strongarmed into being a little more honest. For this reason, and because Microsoft will never give me as much choice as Linux, I'm sticking with the penguin.
It's also interesting to note that this drive for money is conflicting in many areas with their need to compete. They've been considering charging for major patches for a while now... and their patching efforts are already quite wanting. Their greed (How much is office again? What popular new features does it have from 4 years ago? Is it worth that much?) is conflicting with their survival.
~Dalcius
I think, in short, the biggest issue against things like the TIA is this:
The TIA was thought of as a means to search for patterns among public data on American citizens. This equates to the government (computer program or not) evaluating you and your habits for potential trends. It is, in effect, a way for the government to stake-out its citiziens.
Rights to privacy and due process state clearly: you are innocent until proven guilty, and you have a right to be left alone. What the TIA is doing is investigating every citizen regardless of their behavior.
A good analogy is putting up cameras in every public place. The place is public, and they're not targeting YOU specifically, so what's there to worry about, right?
For one, I want to live my life without knowing someone is looking over my shoulder unless they have a reason to look over my shoulder. Playing big-brother to all citizens is not where we want things to go.
Secondly, the argument "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" shows logical ineptitude. The first step in any police state is the ability to monitor citizens. The next step is to deem minority actions illegal (e.g. possessing communist doctorines [see McSurely v. McClellan, Supreme Court]).
When a single body controls both the laws and the force that enforces those laws, the only things they lack are the tools to find those breaking their laws.
History has shown that the public won't stop a government from enacting laws against minorities, especially if the law and/or enforcement of that law are vague, so instead of trust our government not to abuse their information gathering tools, I'd rather just not give them those tools.
If terrorists are on every street corner, either we should be having a lot more bombings (how hard is it to strap TNT to your chest and walk into a Burger King?), or the government has been doing a damn good job in the last decade without these tools.
If you folks want guarantees that terrorists can't do anything to us, enjoy living in a police state, I'll be buying a private island.
PS: To any trolls wanting to call me a liberal whiner who doesn't want my ID checked in an airport, I'll save you some time and humiliation. I typically agree with conservatives over liberals, I believe in airport ID checking and the like. Where do I draw the line? Going to an airport is not generally a regular experience for the vast majority of Americans and often involves international travel. Airports are a good place to scan, IMO. However, if I can be watched just by going through a normal week, I have issues.
I understand and agree with what you've written. Linux marketing is something that needs to be worked on.
It's really just terminology, so I'll leave it at this:
For the vast majority of users, installations are done by admins (at a company) or by a hardware vendor (Dell) or by experienced users (friends/family). Installation isn't a hurdle Linux must overcome. I hope this myth goes away.
For the majority of uses (browsing, email, IM, movies, image editing, printing, scanning, etc.), Linux generally works at least as well as Windows when configured correctly.
Put the two together, and I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
1) If there's a company that is willing to invest money in a black box solution, there will always be plenty of hackers chomping at the bit to break it.
2) If consumers dislike being strong-armed, they will move away, even if the move is extremely slow. Internet filesharing and Linux are two examples of this. Game cracking programs are as well.
The human mind cannot stand to be oppressed or contained and will always fight to break free. This instance is like a black market. "If there is a market, someone will fill it."
Oh I certainly understand and agree -- I'm a programmer myself. However, I would say something to the effect of "I probably used a new feature" or "I ran into a bug" over "it crashed due to a misconfiguration on my part" (emphasis mine). It's really a nit-pick, but it seems that a lot of folks have this mentality these days.
:D
Sorry if I sounded like a troll. =( I'm paid to debug code, I know all about the development process.
"That's your problem: You assimilate your experience with other people experience."
:)
Huh? I was certainly a Linux newbie when I got into it. You can certainly expect a paid IT admin to learn something faster than I did when I picked it up.
--
"Which distro are you using exactly?"
Currently Gentoo.
--
"When you make the statement "it's as easy as doing it on Windows", which distro are you referring to?"
The last time I played with Red Hat (I believe 8), plugging in SMB information during the install got me up and running without a problem. I'm certain, with all the changes to SMB, that certain networks have issues with this, but I didn't.
Printing has always been a breeze for me in Red Hat. Even on the SMB network at my office.
---
"That has always been Unix problem, and Linux is only partially solving it: Disparity. Which shell are you using? Which window Manager?"
Keeping this company centric, a company is going to standardize on one distro which is configured by one admin. This doesn't seem to be getting across. =\ Disparity isn't an issue in this thread.
Here's something I hope you can give honest thought to: are you applying old fashioned methods and geek mentality to this? Most home users are using Red Carpet or the like to install programs (or have someone do it for them, comparable to how most folks probably do it with Windows). Most folks go with the default. Slack and Gentoo are in completely different ball-parks.
Cheers
The logic that "it crashed because I didn't use/configure it right" still amazes me. I'm not trying to troll or flame, I'm just amazed that this is ...
considered normal.
That said, mozilla rules, though I MUCH prefer Galeon and Evolution.
I'm horribly sorry if I'm the only one to see a resemblance:
Darl McBridge
Shooter McGavin
I don't know what kind of victim-mentality you grew up in (sorry for the flame), but come on man...
If something is so small that you can "just miss it", it's not big enough to sue over.
If something gets out there that is big enough to sue over, let the company be responsible for a change. I'm tired of this, "Oh, sorry, wasn't paying attention, don't hold me accountable".
Common sense folks. Manage. Be responsible. Be accountable.
I dunno, seems pretty simple to me.a .html
http://www.caldera.com/support/docs/openlinux/eul
See section 2c.
It's just like Star Wars! This is the part where IBM hits the comm switch and says:
"Fire at will, commander."
20 to 40 a day? Is this at work?
I make it a habit to check the privacy policy of any website that requires my email address. I've got a hotmail account for those I don't care to check or for those that have bad policies.
I never use my work email to sign up for things, I rarely have my work email published anywhere (mailling lists, etc.). I honestly don't think I've gotten any spam on my work account since I started (summer of 2000). I might have confused one or two with my other accounts, but I can't say.
That said... is my experience really limited? Do a lot of folks just work for companies with such popular domains that spammers do dictionary attacks? Do folks use their work email address to sign up for "e-greetings" and "quiz your friends.com"? Or am I missing something?
Windows got it's marketshare from being adopted into offices and then brought home, which then causes more offices to adopt it since employees know it, etc.
You're talking about installation. This is an administration task. Administration tasks are almost exclusively handled by IT folks in companies these days.
Put the two together, and you get a clear picture. As long as an admin can get a tarball of a working Linux installation onto a CD or NFS share (which he can), Linux effectively has no barriers to entry. Business adopt Linux, folks take Linux home, market share grows, companies invest in making software portable to get more $$$, more people use Linux, etc.
Almost every function with the exception of DirectX /Direct3D can be done in Linux as far as office productivity goes.
Hey man, if I can't play Jedi Knight II at work, it's a no-go...
Note that Windows didn't really play well with desktops or especially servers when it was introduced.
Remember kids, the vast majority of UNIX servers run on Linux. If Linux isn't Windows server friendly, Windows wasn't UNIX server (a very established market) friendly.
As for the client, if you have an admin doing 90% of the software configuration on a box (the way the vast majority of companies do things), Linux is a breeze. Setup is really the only area Linux is lacking in thus far.
These days, with the right admin tools, p2p essentially combines the mainframe with the client.
Keep one head server with a listing of all configs and some tools to pipe everything out to distributed clients.
The inane thing is that everything I just mentioned is friggin painless on *NIX. You can do it in a Windows GUI, but certainly not as effortlessly.
Automation rules.
Don't bite, I know...
Here's a little exercise for the reader:
Go implement RPC. Or SMB. Or CSS. Or HTML for Christ's sake. Follow documented standards.
Wait a year. Find out what still works with the latest version of Windows.
"With linux, you need them, and if they , at C|Net didn't have them, it probably means they are not that obvious to identify and/or find for the average end user."
What end-users at a typical company these days know how to manage a Windows network connection?
Your analogy doesn't add up.
And who the hell looks for Linux apps at C|Net anyway?!? I have a hunch this might be your problem -- maybe a little ill informed but making an opinion anyway?
In addition, claiming that the "right tools" aren't "part of the system" (differentiate between a tool and the OS) in Linux is ridiculous. Windows has a number of services and tools built in, but nothing so specific that you'd have to hunt for a Linux equivilent in any modern distro.
For example, a typical Red Hat installation (or anything else, really) has enough software (already installed and configured) to log onto a Windows network and happily share files and print. This isn't opinion up for debate, this is plain fact. I've been doing this since I got into Linux, actually, about three years ago.
Just to help the logic-impaired, don't go flaming about "Ooh it's so hard to get SAMBA working." For one, these days, it's as easy as doing it on Windows. For two, again, what end-users do you know in a corporate environment that manage their network connection?
Sorry for the rambling.
"An infrastructure is not ripped out and replaced in a day -- or even two. I doubt that we'll see Linux being used for wholesale replacements of corporate desktops in the near future. Until that day does come, Linux needs to play nice with the current prevailing technology."
Desktops:
For certain desktop aspects? Yes. Linux needs to play nicely, users aren't going to compromise.
That said, I think it's very fair to argue that with the same corporate setup (IT guys doing all software administration for 90% of employees), Linux does fine for the vast majority. The hardest part of using Linux is getting programs installed and working and configured, which is all an admin job. Like it or not, the rest is generally pie. Most Linux applications (Galeon, Gaim, AbiWord, Evolution) all have very easy-to-use GUIs. I don't see Linux lacking here.
Servers:
I'm sure some folks will correct me, and I'm sure that even more will nitpick here, but how well did Windows work with UNIX? Can it do NFS well? Kerberos? All the client software worked with UNIX I would assume, but somehow I doubt that NT was extremely UNIX friendly upon its introduction. Somehow I don't see the "new technologies must be friendly" in this instance. Can anyone (intelligently) point out a flaw in my logic? (it's late)
Cheers
I'm a computer programmer (software analyst to be exact; I debug code all day). I currently work for a company that does hospital software. We use both Windows for desktops and servers and Linux for desktops and servers, we use Windows related apps on Linux and Linux related apps on Windows (just depends on which department you're in). I've been a hardcore computer geek for a number of years. I've got two dual boot systems (Windows & Linux) on my desk at home, a Linux server and a Linux laptop. My first OS was DOS 3.0, though I was pretty young then (I'm still young now, to be fair).
In my experience, what you've said is correct, but outdated, or current but a little over-the-top, however you want to look at it. Regardless, your basic ideas are sane and I think folks need to realize this.
In no other industry (that I can think of) does such cruft get passed of with such a pricetag and so little consumer control and even less corporate responsibility. The concept of a shrink-wrap EULA with such clauses as "you will not use Frontpage 2000 to write pages defamatory of Microsoft" is almost unheard of in the big picture.
Microsoft is certainly not the only big, bad, evil corporation out there, and they're certainly not all evil. But I'll agree with you: Microsoft has really spoofed a lot of people into believing that these things are normal and they're not.
Some of you folks need to take a step back for a sec, cast aside your creed and look at the issues. There are really a lot of pro-MS zealots here (contrary to all the whining [yes, whining -- see not informed discussion]).
Just something to think about folks.
If IBM shoots a warning-shot across Gate's bow, he'd be insane not to bow to their wishes. IBM is the God of research. They can pretty much out-match anyone in an IP pissing contest, including Microsoft.
Recall the IP fuss that Intel got into recently over the Itanium? Microsoft vs IBM would not look pretty.
Seven years for a tech patent?
Technology these days has a shelf-life of no more than two years. Another solution needs to be found.